Fresher ocean water can boost hurricanes

Tropical cyclones grow faster over ocean barrier layers.

There are two things coastal residents nervously look for in hurricanes (more generally, “tropical cyclones”). First, where will the storm make landfall? Second, how strong will it be? Tropical cyclones are fueled by warm water, so sea surface temperatures have a lot to do with how a storm plays out.

Normally, a tropical cyclone traveling over warm water will cause the water to cool as the strong winds stir up the water, which brings cooler water to the surface. This helps limit the growth of the cyclone, because it effectively diminishes its own fuel source. However, that doesn’t always happen, and the storm can continue to grow as a result.

In 2008, Hurricane Omar spun its way through the Caribbean. It was not an especially damaging storm, but it did give researchers some food for thought. If you look at a map of Omar’s effect on sea surface temperatures, you’ll see that as it neared the Virgin Islands, it stopped causing the warm sea surface to cool. Later, the normal cooling behavior resumed. So what happened?

Data from Argo floats in the area showed that a barrier layer had set up in the area that resisted Omar’s cooling effects. Because warm water near the surface (warmed by the atmosphere and sun) is a little less dense that the cooler water below, stable layers form—the warm water stays happily above the cooler ocean beneath it. The transition between the two can be fairly sharp (the boundary's depth is known as the thermocline).

But temperature isn’t the only factor that affects density—so does salinity. Saltier water is more dense than less salty water, and so this, too, factors into the layering. A “barrier layer” develops when the density transition depth (the pycnocline) is shallower than the thermocline. This is an odd circumstance that can occur in areas of the ocean where rainfall (which is freshwater) is much greater than evaporation, or where rivers dump large amounts of freshwater.

In either case, the barrier layer forms when the surface water becomes much less dense than the water below, preventing the two from mixing. All the water above the barrier layer is warm, and no amount of wind will stir up cooler water to the surface. There is, essentially, a much stronger than usual boundary between warm surface water and the cooler water beneath it.

So what effect does all this have on a hurricane? If the hurricane’s winds don’t stir up cooler water to the surface, the storm’s fuel source will remain strong.

To see if this really had a discernible effect on tropical cyclone intensity, a group of researchers analyzed data from storms between 1998 and 2007. While less than 25 percent of tropical cyclones pass over a barrier layer, they intensify 50 percent more quickly while they do.

To investigate further, the researchers used a regional climate model to simulate tropical cyclones with and without barrier layers. The simulations gave very similar results. In the presence of a barrier layer, wind-driven sea surface cooling decreased by one-third, while the rate of cyclone intensification increased by 70 percent.

Tropical cyclone forecasting tools don’t currently include salinity effects on seawater density, but this study shows barrier layers can have a considerable impact on how storms intensify. “[T]he role of [barrier layers] in [tropical cyclone] intensification should not be overlooked,” the authors write, “as even modest improvements in [tropical cyclone] intensity forecast skill can aid societal response and help mitigate these storms’ destructive power.”

The researchers also point out that barrier layer formation could be altered as the climate warms. Changes in evaporation (and precipitation) that affect barrier layers could thus affect tropical cyclone behavior, as well—adding another component for climate modelers to evaluate in studying how tropical cyclones will respond to climate change.

Very clear, intuitive description of a difficult subject, while keeping it short. Unless someone can create a controversy on the subject, comments may be limited, but the clearly-presented insight is useful and appreciated.

So when Omar hit that spot near the Virgin Islands - did it end up intensifying ?

You only mention that it hit a warm spot where it couldn't churn up cool water.

You mention the event - but you don't clarify anything about it relating back to the article.

____________________________________________

Quote:

flash__ wrote:

Ctrl+F "Isaac" = Not Found?

Seemed relevant.

Are you simply mentioning Isaac because this is a hurricane article ?

Why not Katrina or Ivan or Andrew or Isabel or Hugo or Floyd or Irene or Wilma or Charley ?

The reason is more likely that Omar supported data for the research and subsequently the article and Isaac did not. (also Isaac was a hurricane for abourt 5 minutes - but I suppose a tropical storm is still technically a "cyclone").

Very clear, intuitive description of a difficult subject, while keeping it short. Unless someone can create a controversy on the subject, comments may be limited, but the clearly-presented insight is useful and appreciated.

Very clear, intuitive description of a difficult subject, while keeping it short. Unless someone can create a controversy on the subject, comments may be limited, but the clearly-presented insight is useful and appreciated.

Why not Katrina or Ivan or Andrew or Isabel or Hugo or Floyd or Irene or Wilma or Charley ?

The reason is more likely that Omar supported data for the research and subsequently the article and Isaac did not. (also Isaac was a hurricane for abourt 5 minutes - but I suppose a tropical storm is still technically a “cyclone”).

Isaac could be relevant because the eye lingered a long time off the coast at the mouth of the Mississippi. Although, yeah, too early to have proper data analysis done for it.

There is something quite relevent but not mentioned. Oceanic heat content. That is the heat energy contained to specific depth (measured in joules). You can google it and find several images. Omars track originated in lower overall heat depth and then passed over water that was warm to greater depth. These locations change slightly from year to year. As an example...in 2005, the loop current had spun off a "warm eddy", an area of extremely deep warm water, directly in Katrina's path which allowed rapid intensification. It was exactly opposite this year which is a big reason Isaac did not intensify until it got closer where there was more heat at greater depth...there was no warm eddy for him. This boundry layer might be a factor but the relative heat is much more of a factor in Omars case. Its hard to upwell cold water when the warmth goes to great depth already

Why not Katrina or Ivan or Andrew or Isabel or Hugo or Floyd or Irene or Wilma or Charley ?

The reason is more likely that Omar supported data for the research and subsequently the article and Isaac did not. (also Isaac was a hurricane for abourt 5 minutes - but I suppose a tropical storm is still technically a “cyclone”).

Isaac could be relevant because the eye lingered a long time off the coast at the mouth of the Mississippi. Although, yeah, too early to have proper data analysis done for it.

Many have argued the the NHC missed the boat bigtime on this storm by not classifying it as a hurricane much earlier. 12 hours before, recon was sampling flight level (aprox 4000ft) of 85kts (aprox 100mph). With its lowest pressure 964 mb, this is a pressure one would equate with a strong cat2 or possibly cat3 storm. Ike was similar in this respect but was weakening at landfall, Isaac was a strengthening storm which tends to tighten up on landfall. I think we will see damage well beyond what a cat1 hurricane could do

I moved away from the Gulf region after 40 years at least partially because of Ike. Roof on the house got ripped off, some of the rafters were damaged. All the trees were damaged at least partially, most were torn out at the root. All the western-facing yard fences were blown down. Had internal rain damage from incoming rain through holes in roof. Spent 17 days on a generator to keep reefers cold and at least AC in one room.

Alicia years before caused the entire town to flood including my house. Every time it rains for an hour or more, the backyard turns into swampland complete with crayfish. Nearest bayou is 5 miles away.

When the ice caps fully melt, my former house will be seaside property, assuming sea level only rises 40 feet. And I didn't live in Louisiana or Florida.

Why in the world would anyone want to live in New Orleans? Even a Cat 1 storm causes the surge to top the levees. Those people are idiots.

Stupid Republicans say "There is no Global Warming!". Yeah right. I think I got out in time. Elevation here is 740 feet.

Keep in mind that a lot of junk science comes out of "climate researchers." Think of many of them as more like climate astrologers.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have an example of some junk science published by climate researchers?

I do! There was a very widely publicized paper by climate scientist Roy Spencer which was so terrible that it caused the journal's editor in chief to resign, and was thoroughly refuted in subsequent research. Then we have a paper by (Richard) Lindzen and Choi in 2011, the follow up to an unremarkable but problematic previous paper, which was so bad that most journals refused to publish on the grounds that it didn't say anything meaningful or defend criticisms of the earlier work. Incidentally, both of papers purported to show that CO2 wasn't the major cause of warming. Both Spencer and Lindzen are notable denialists and obstructionists of rational climate policy. So I imagine they're probably not what Leather Rope had in mind. They don't seem to be representative of the state of climate science as a field, since apparently the field has standards.

Keep in mind that a lot of junk science comes out of "climate researchers." Think of many of them as more like climate astrologers.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have an example of some junk science published by climate researchers?

I was going to ask for citations and/or proof, but wasn't sure if that commenter was just stirring the pot or not. If you look at his comments, you'll find a lot of opinions, which is fine, but not worth arguing with due to the pattern of no citations.

Why in the world would anyone want to live in New Orleans? Even a Cat 1 storm causes the surge to top the levees. Those people are idiots.

I've heard some interesting coverage on our national radio (CBC) The locals who have stayed/plan to stay on, seem to feel that the benefits of a strong, connected, inter-reliant community makes staying despite the inconvenient whether, a rational choice,

Keep in mind that a lot of junk science comes out of "climate researchers." Think of many of them as more like climate astrologers.

Tyler X. Durden wrote:

AngrySaki wrote:

Quote:

Keep in mind that a lot of junk science comes out of "climate researchers." Think of many of them as more like climate astrologers.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have an example of some junk science published by climate researchers?

Perhaps he’s referring to Anthony Watts, thus the air quotes around “climate researchers”?

Wheels Of Confusion wrote:

AngrySaki wrote:

Quote:

Keep in mind that a lot of junk science comes out of "climate researchers." Think of many of them as more like climate astrologers.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have an example of some junk science published by climate researchers?

I do! There was a very widely publicized paper by climate scientist Roy Spencer which was so terrible that it caused the journal's editor in chief to resign, and was thoroughly refuted in subsequent research. Then we have a paper by (Richard) Lindzen and Choi in 2011, the follow up to an unremarkable but problematic previous paper, which was so bad that most journals refused to publish on the grounds that it didn't say anything meaningful or defend criticisms of the earlier work. Incidentally, both of papers purported to show that CO2 wasn't the major cause of warming. Both Spencer and Lindzen are notable denialists and obstructionists of rational climate policy. So I imagine they're probably not what Leather Rope had in mind. They don't seem to be representative of the state of climate science as a field, since apparently the field has standards.

I really didn't think the deniers were going to crop up in this thread.

But since I was wrong, I'm glad that it turned into a pretty good comedy sketch.Makes for a great beginning to a long weekend.

I really didn't think the deniers were going to crop up in this thread.

But since I was wrong, I'm glad that it turned into a pretty good comedy sketch.

You're right, it is a bit comedic when people feel like they need to help derail a thread which was otherwise about a well-written article about a genuinely interesting topic by linking to 3rd-hand blogcriticisms of unrelated work.

I sometimes wonder if the Earth could ever develop a permanent storm like Jupiter has. Imagine a massive tropical cyclone forming, and conditions developing that cause it to never dissipate as it meanders around the equator.

Yeah, cause the deaths of people we don't agree with politically is funny!

Hahahahahahahahha

asshole.

Why isn't it? Please, explain empathy and compassion towards your enemies using logic. I'm all ears. I absolutely must get the Republican take on the overwhelming irony of $deity's perpetual attempts to wipe out the areas of land republicans are so very proud of inhabiting. Doubly so since the climate change they work so fiercely to deny impacts them the most.

An entire culture full of people who are so outrageously selfish that they are willing to condemn our entire species in order to retain ~3% additional wealth exists in the southern united states. This is the same culture full of people that publicly condemns some of my best friends for enjoying a perfectly natural #unrealmarriage. It is a culture that embraces #legitimaterape as a method of contraception; excepting of course when the spotlight is on them, then they pillory the poor fuck who talks about it, all the while pushing like mad to have the very policies he brought forward implemented.

A whole culture full of people who call me a socialist, a communist, and a even a Nazi because I support the idea of helping those less fortunate than me. (Everything from upholding the UDHR to public health care to things as simple as equal rights for immigrants, minorities, or individuals of differing sexual orientation.) I have had my life threatened by this culture of people, repeatedly. I have had the lives of my family threatened; in one case simply because I held the door open for an overworked Mexican lady and her 5 kids.

Republicans (loudly, and on telivison, demonstrated once more through the power of their votes) believe in everything I believe is evil in this world. More to the point, they believe that I should have my rights removed – some of them believe I and my loved ones should have our lives removed – because I believe in helping others. My religious and cultural tolerance extends right to the point that said culture demands the “right” to harm others, or to force others to believe what they do.

My belief systems prevent me from attacking my enemies. They do not prevent me from defending myself, nor do they prevent me from enjoying the living fuck out of someone reaping back what they hath sown. So as the planet itself reacts to global warming by attempting to wipe out republicans with slightly more predjudice than the rest of us, I am going to enjoy it. Every moment. Because they are the enemy, and they have proven to me over and over that if I extended them an ounce of sympathy or compassion they would simply use against me.

Republicans started this vicious little culture war of “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us.” Well I sure as hell ain’t with ‘em, so if that automatically makes me against ‘em…I’ll embrace that position, thanks. If you can explain to me using careful logic and unimpeachable reasoning why I should extend sympathy, compassion or anything similar to individuals who self-identify with this culture, please do explain in detail. Until then, I am just going to enjoy the fact that not only is the vast majority of our species “against them,” but so to now is the very planet Earth herself.

I sometimes wonder if the Earth could ever develop a permanent storm like Jupiter has. Imagine a massive tropical cyclone forming, and conditions developing that cause it to never dissipate as it meanders around the equator.

I don't think this is possible. The issue is that the oceans aren't big enough. That storm will eventually move with the coriolis (even if it were to stay more or less in the same latitude band). This means it would eventually hit land, no matter how large it got.

What does worry me however are storms hitting Asia\Australia. The Pacific is just a big enough place that if we were to get a significant enough of Antarctica to break off, lowering the salinity of the top layer at just the right time...

There's a lot of room there for the thing to pick up a crazy amount of power.

A question for those in the know...what could this mean for the days when significant glaciers can make it to the tropics; enough to affect local salinity? (Thinking here specifically of the Atlantic.) What about rainfall pattern deltas? I know that icemelt could move enough fresh water to make salinity changes...but continued droughts will also affect local salinity as rivers dry up (or at least significantly reduce flow.)

Would Isaac have been more powerful had the Mississippi not been at a nearly all-time low? Do the changes in river outflow, glacial melt and glacial cleaving have any effects on currents which in turn might have knock-on effects regarding the distribution of salinity over time?

There is so much research that seems begging to be done after this paper…

A question for those in the know...what could this mean for the days when significant glaciers can make it to the tropics; enough to affect local salinity? (Thinking here specifically of the Atlantic.)

I'm a little confused by your question. Do you mean days when they could make it to the tropics, or are you saying days when freshwater from glacier melt will make it to the tropics?

Quote:

What about rainfall pattern deltas? I know that icemelt could move enough fresh water to make salinity changes...but continued droughts will also affect local salinity as rivers dry up (or at least significantly reduce flow.) Would Isaac have been more powerful had the Mississippi not been at a nearly all-time low? Do the changes in river outflow, glacial melt and glacial cleaving have any effects on currents which in turn might have knock-on effects regarding the distribution of salinity over time?

Globally, river discharge plays a surprisingly small part in the freshwater balance. Even the Amazon outflow rate is small compared to general circulation features (the annual Amazon discharge amounts to something like 1% of the nominal Gulf Stream flow). The oceanic balance is nearly all about E - P (Evaporation - Precipitation) and then moving excess heat and salinity around. Thus, we need good global coverage of evaporation and precipitation along with good regional coverage of river discharge and ice melt.

The Gulf of Mexico is partially bounded, so the Mississippi does play an important role. Still, the average freshwater input is still only enough to offset about half the annual E - P imbalance. Even under normal conditions, most of the salinity in the Gulf is exported by flow (e.g., through the Florida Straits). As for specific effects on the development of Hurricane Isaac, I wouldn't want to speculate.

Quote:

There is so much research that seems begging to be done after this paper…

There are many model studies on this problem, but near-surface mixing is one of the areas where models could stand quite a lot of improvement (for example, the study covered in the article notes that the barrier layer is not well represented even in a regional model).

I moved away from the Gulf region after 40 years at least partially because of Ike. Roof on the house got ripped off, some of the rafters were damaged. All the trees were damaged at least partially, most were torn out at the root. All the western-facing yard fences were blown down. Had internal rain damage from incoming rain through holes in roof. Spent 17 days on a generator to keep reefers cold and at least AC in one room.

Alicia years before caused the entire town to flood including my house. Every time it rains for an hour or more, the backyard turns into swampland complete with crayfish. Nearest bayou is 5 miles away.

When the ice caps fully melt, my former house will be seaside property, assuming sea level only rises 40 feet. And I didn't live in Louisiana or Florida.

Why in the world would anyone want to live in New Orleans? Even a Cat 1 storm causes the surge to top the levees. Those people are idiots.

Stupid Republicans say "There is no Global Warming!". Yeah right. I think I got out in time. Elevation here is 740 feet.

Since you mention alicia, ike and 40 ft above sea level, i'm guessing you lived somewhere near houston. Maybe pearland or something. How did TS allison affect you? Being on the north side, way above sea level, didn't help me at all.

One thing i will never understand are the people who live right on the coast (galveston, grand isle, etc) who see a big storm coming, are told to evacuate, then they stay put. A hurricane is probably the ONLY natural disaster you can see coming far enough in advance to get the hell out of the way, yet people die (stupidly, i might add) every time a hurricane comes in. I guess they feel the need to continually prove "survival of the fittest".

Well, we can say that AGW increases the size and frequency of tropical storms, but we cannot say that Issac was caused by AGW.

Actually you can guess that GW (minus the "A" part, as any type of warming would exhibit such effects) "increases the size and frequency of tropical storms", but the jury is still out.

First there was the "Inconvenient Truth" era claim that GW would cause more intense hurricanes. Since the record since then really hasn't supported that idea, as usual the "predictions" of the alarmists shifted to claim that whatever is happening must be caused by GW. So, currently the claim is that GW will tend to cause more, but not necessarily more intense, tropical storms.

Certainly this season seems to fit that mold so far...let's hope it stays that way. Isaac should be a nice rainfall event over a good chunk of the drought-stricken areas.

Warm water is only one factor. Surrounding dry air, atmospheric stability, wind shear and Cape Verde storm activity all factor in as well.

Yeah, cause the deaths of people we don't agree with politically is funny!

Hahahahahahahahha

asshole.

Why isn't it? Please, explain empathy and compassion towards your enemies using logic. I'm all ears. I absolutely must get the Republican take on the overwhelming irony of $deity's perpetual attempts to wipe out the areas of land republicans are so very proud of inhabiting. Doubly so since the climate change they work so fiercely to deny impacts them the most.

LOL! Atlantic basin hurricanes have been happening for a long time before Americans occupied the South. The folks who've stayed there know what they're up against, and simply deal with natural disasters like almost everyone has to from time to time.

I guess "$deity" hates all the liberal/gay Californians too, since the frothingly flamboyant large cities there sit right on major fault lines that will likely let loose in the near future. They're overdue, you know...

Great logic on your part. ;-)

Quote:

An entire culture full of people who are so outrageously selfish that they are willing to condemn our entire species in order to retain ~3% additional wealth exists in the southern united states.

That's not true at all. It's an entire culture that encourages others to emulate the hard work and innovation that's lead to the unprecedented success of the USA. Such success would surely be found by discovering actually economically competitive methods of producing energy that don't involve CO2. In fact, at least one such method, nuclear power, has already been discovered, but a particularly vocal, ignorant and obnoxious segment of the population dogmatically opposes it despite its obvious benefits.

Quote:

This is the same culture full of people that publicly condemns some of my best friends for enjoying a perfectly natural #unrealmarriage.

Almost no one opposes "civil unions", which confer the relevant benefits of "marriage". "Marriage" is a religious concept, and most of the religions that define "marriage" consider homosexuality a sin. The big problem started when government got involved in providing "marriage licenses", really violating the Constitutional separation of church and state.

As a second point, I oppose "gay adoption", as studies show that adopted children raised by gays are statistically much more likely to end up gay themselves. There is also the issue of a higher percentage of child molesters among male gays. Neither issue is fair to the kids involved. The higher likelihood of gay adoptees becoming gay also argues strongly against the "gay gene" idea, another example along with CAGW of quite premature "settled science" being embraced by many on the Left.

Quote:

It is a culture that embraces #legitimaterape as a method of contraception; excepting of course when the spotlight is on them, then they pillory the poor fuck who talks about it, all the while pushing like mad to have the very policies he brought forward implemented.

Nothing like blanket stereotypes, eh? Typical liberal "tolerance".

Quote:

A whole culture full of people who call me a socialist, a communist, and a even a Nazi because I support the idea of helping those less fortunate than me.

Nonsense, however most conservatives support charity through other means than government programs. Those haven't ever worked out very well, and are always glaring examples of inefficiency, waste and lost human dignity.

Quote:

(Everything from upholding the UDHR to public health care to things as simple as equal rights for immigrants, minorities, or individuals of differing sexual orientation.)

By "immigrants" I'm quite sure you mean "illegal immigrants". The fact that they are here at all is a national disgrace. I hope the coming administration at least strengthens border security, but I don't have much real hope that it will happen. Regardless, it will be a big improvement over the 0 administration.

I'm sure you'll be quick to provide some concrete examples of how "minorities" lack equal rights in the US today...

Quote:

I have had my life threatened by this culture of people, repeatedly. I have had the lives of my family threatened; in one case simply because I held the door open for an overworked Mexican lady and her 5 kids.

Why would you live in such a place?!? Move to San Francisco immediately! heh

Seriously, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the attitude you've exhibited in this rant...if your anecdote is even true.

Quote:

Republicans (loudly, and on telivison, demonstrated once more through the power of their votes) believe in everything I believe is evil in this world. More to the point, they believe that I should have my rights removed – some of them believe I and my loved ones should have our lives removed – because I believe in helping others.

My, what a high-minded paragon of moral virtue you seem to be! Kudos!

(It does seem to me, though, that your concept of "helping others" means "having the government help others with other people's money".)

Quote:

My religious and cultural tolerance extends right to the point that said culture demands the “right” to harm others, or to force others to believe what they do.

Thank goodness you believe in other's rights to believe what they want! (rolls eyes)

Quote:

My belief systems prevent me from attacking my enemies. They do not prevent me from defending myself, nor do they prevent me from enjoying the living fuck out of someone reaping back what they hath sown. So as the planet itself reacts to global warming by attempting to wipe out republicans with slightly more predjudice than the rest of us, I am going to enjoy it. Every moment. Because they are the enemy, and they have proven to me over and over that if I extended them an ounce of sympathy or compassion they would simply use against me.

What a downtrodden, helpless, powerless victim you are. I'm sorry you have a life so bereft of anything worthwhile.

By the way, I'm sure whoever the recipient was secretly appreciated the "ounce of sympathy or compassion" you generously threw their way. ;-)

Quote:

Republicans started this vicious little culture war of “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us.”

That was actually referring to "being with" the US in the fight against terrorism...but if the shoe fits...

Quote:

Well I sure as hell ain’t with ‘em, so if that automatically makes me against ‘em…I’ll embrace that position, thanks. If you can explain to me using careful logic and unimpeachable reasoning why I should extend sympathy, compassion or anything similar to individuals who self-identify with this culture, please do explain in detail. Until then, I am just going to enjoy the fact that not only is the vast majority of our species “against them,” but so to now is the very planet Earth herself.

Game theory certainly points to cooperation producing more virtuous results than opposition.

As to the wild hyperbole of the "very planet Earth herself" being against conservatives, there are a few minor flaws there. First, you are back to the quite primitive idea that natural events are personal blessings or punishments from a deity, which has been rejected for quite some time by most religions, not to mention atheists (like yourself?). Second, you are ascribing consciousness to a large chunk of metal, rock and water, which seems quite a stretch. Third, as I pointed out above, natural disasters happen all over. I guess God hates the Japanese in particular, eh? Then there are those horribly sinful Thai, Bangladeshi, and so on that died by the hundreds of thousands when the tsunami struck a few years ago...

Yeah, cause the deaths of people we don't agree with politically is funny!

Hahahahahahahahha

asshole.

Why isn't it? Please, explain empathy and compassion towards your enemies using logic. I'm all ears. I absolutely must get the Republican take on the overwhelming irony of $deity's perpetual attempts to wipe out the areas of land republicans are so very proud of inhabiting. Doubly so since the climate change they work so fiercely to deny impacts them the most.

LOL! Atlantic basin hurricanes have been happening for a long time before Americans occupied the South. The folks who've stayed there know what they're up against, and simply deal with natural disasters like almost everyone has to from time to time.

I guess "$deity" hates all the liberal/gay Californians too, since the frothingly flamboyant large cities there sit right on major fault lines that will likely let loose in the near future. They're overdue, you know...

He’s serious about how busted it is. It is a lampoon of G-d directing disasters to fall on the wicked and sinful. So your point about temporal inflexibility doesn’t work because G-d could change that, he isn’t bound by such things.